For those of you interested......I printed a black and white high key file (snow, clouds,
etc) and a low key black and white file (lots of darks with shadow
detail )also with areas of light sky that would print with little or
no ink lay down). I printed identical files on both the Hahnemuhle
and Harman Baryta papers using Imageprint. As far as the actual print goes (tonal
values, detail, etc) both papers are excellent with virtually no
difference in quality. Both papers have minimal to non existent
metamerism and minimal gloss differential. I found the Hahnemuhle to
have a slightly glossier base than the Harman(which had a little more
diffuse gloss when held side to side with the Hahnemuhle print).
While the Hahnemuhle gloss serves to hide any gloss differential a
bit better than the Harman, I prefer the slightly softer gloss of the
Harman. I held the prints in all sorts of lighting at all kinds of
angles to compare the gloss differential and metamerism. In normal
viewing circumstances, both papers are free of any reflection issues
(metamerism, gloss differential, etc.). the texture on both papers
was very subtle and I found about equal, tho slightly different. I
actually found that, to my eye the Harman paper was a bit brighter
than the Hahnemuhle---but not noticeable so. When held next to epson
premium glossy, both papers have a pleasant soft white base.
A problem both papers have is that they don't corner mount well---
they don't lay flat like Museo silver rag or Hahnemuhle fine art
pearl do. I will have to find some way to cold mount prints done on
papers in this new category. In my darkroom days I would dry mount
everything as I like that look. (don't like wavy prints in a mat). The Hahnemuhle paper does tend to lay a bit flatter than the Harman however.
In the end my current favorite is probably going to be the harman
because the gloss is more diffuse and a bit softer. I also felt the
Harman paper felt a tad more substantial in weight, even tho they
weight virtually the same.
Eleanor
